three years of glycaemic control threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 1.7mg to 0.25mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 7 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have early fullness I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 7 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
Yeah, glycaemic control is the original use.
[removed by moderator]
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
insulin and sulfonylurea interactions are real hypo risk
Has anyone actually got this in writing, or is it forum lore at this point?
The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.
CGM traces tell a story, numbers alone do not
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
A1c, CGM, stacking with metformin
Strongly agree. A1c matters as much as weight.
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
type 2 is the indication, weight loss is the side effect
This is correct. Hypo risk is real.
Maintenance for 7 months now. Weight moves within about 3kg and the dose is a quarter of what it peaked at.
Strongly agree. A1c matters as much as weight.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
the triglycerides change is the signal
- 1This is correct. Hypo risk is real.6 comments in this branch · started by u/tomas_kimani
- 2Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.5 comments in this branch · started by u/gentle_correction